Council heard that Greater Victoria needs more hotel rooms, and that the City could miss out on downtown jobs and spending unless hotel projects become easier to build. It supported a cannabis retail licence at 1010 Cook Street despite objections focused on a youth supportive-housing facility next door; two councillors opposed. A rooftop garden pilot at the Johnson Street Parkade also passed, after a debate over whether scarce downtown parking should be used for gardens instead. Council further backed requests to the Province about the BC Community Housing Fund, active transportation grants and the vacant heritage building at 28 Bastion Square.
Generated from the recording's captions and the official minutes.
What was discussed
AI summary · check against sources
G.1 Destination Greater Victoria - Greater Victoria Hotel Development Working Group
zoning development2 public speakers8:22 Watch · Read
Two representatives of Destination Greater Victoria presented recommendations to help deliver about 2,000 net new hotel rooms across the region over ten years, including about 1,500 in Victoria. They said roughly 80% of sites where hotels are permitted in the City are too small for a viable project, and that full-service and conference hotels remain difficult to finance even with strong occupancy. Their proposals include targeted zoning flexibility, clearer early guidance from City departments, stronger First Nations partnerships, and incentives to convert office and heritage buildings. The working group estimated the regional rooms could support about 2,760 jobs, $85 million in annual wages and more than $100 million in annual visitor spending. Staff said Victoria has six active hotel applications and expects to bring forward interim policy and process changes before Council’s summer break.
Agreement
Council members welcomed the work and agreed that more hotel rooms could support downtown activity, local jobs and tourism.
Staff and the presenters described a cooperative working relationship and said some process improvements are already being piloted.
Disagreement
Councillors raised unresolved trade-offs: how to make projects viable without accepting proposals that are too large, how hotels fit with downtown parking and street priorities, and how to avoid building rooms faster than demand grows.
H.1 1010 Cook Street - Recommendation for Altitude Cannabis
Council considered whether to support Altitude Cannabis’s application for a provincial retail licence at 1010 Cook Street. Staff said the site is more than 200 metres from another cannabis store and that City bylaw staff and police had raised no concerns. The proposed store is next door to the Mirrors youth supportive-housing facility; a nearby medical office is about 140 metres away. Staff explained that this was a provincial licensing referral, not a new rezoning decision, and said they had no administrative basis to recommend against the licence. Council supported the application, with two councillors opposed.
Agreement
Council was considering a comment to the provincial Liquor and Cannabis Regulation Branch, not whether to rezone the site.
The existing City rules discussed at the meeting focus on separation from other cannabis stores and schools; they do not set a separation rule for social-service facilities.
Disagreement
Councillors Hammond and Gardiner opposed the application, citing the youth facility next door and concerns about the wellbeing of young people, families and children.
Supporters, including Councillor Caradonna, said the application met the relevant City rules and that concerns about nearby social services were not part of this licensing decision.
Council would tell the provincial licensing branch that it supports Altitude Cannabis receiving a retail licence at 1010 Cook Street and recommends that the branch issue it. The City would cite the limited community impacts reported by Bylaw Services, the absence of concerns from Victoria Police, the suitability of the location, and the notices sent to nearby residents and the neighbourhood association. The recommendation would depend on the applicant meeting City bylaws and permit requirements.
Official wording: 1. That Council direct staff to advise the Liquor and Cannabis Regulation Branch (LCRB):
The Council of the City of Victoria supports the application of Altitude Cannabis at 1010 Cook Street to receive a provincial cannabis retail store license with the following comments:
a. Council recommends that the Liquor and Cannabis Regulation Branch issue a license to Altitude Cannabis at 1010 Cook Street.
b. Bylaw Services indicates the proposed cannabis retail store would have limited community impact. The Victoria Police Department did not raise any concerns about community impacts.
c. The reasons for a positive local government recommendation include that:
a. The location permits storefront cannabis retail.
b. Staff did not raise significant concerns about community impact due to the proposed storefront cannabis retailer at this location.
d. Residents’ views were solicited through a mail-out to property owners and occupiers within 100 meters of this address and to the relevant neighbourhood association. The City sent 699 notices, including the Fairfield Gonzales Community Association.
2. That Council direct staff to advise the LCRB of Council’s recommendation subject to the applicant’s compliance with applicable City bylaws and permits.
Council directed staff to explore an amendment to the Amenity Cost Charges Bylaw that would exempt projects with an approved rezoning that are not yet fully built. Staff said the change would prevent developments from facing a late charge after negotiating amenities under the earlier system, and estimated that fewer than ten projects are likely to be affected. Discussion also clarified that amenity cost charges cannot fund affordable housing under the provincial rules; staff said density-bonus contributions may still provide a separate route to the housing reserve fund.
Agreement
Councillors supported exploring the transition exemption to avoid unexpected or duplicative charges on projects already underway.
There was no opposition to the staff direction.
Disagreement
Councillor Caradonna criticized the provincial limits on using amenity cost charges for affordable housing and said the change could reduce money available for the City’s housing reserve.
Staff would explore exempting projects that have an approved rezoning but are not yet fully built from the amenity charges transition rules. The City would identify who could be affected, consult the public, report back on the feedback, and bring forward a bylaw amendment informed by that feedback. The matter would also go to the daytime Council meeting for ratification.
Official wording: That Council:
1. Instruct the Director of Planning and Development to explore the possibility of amending the Amenity Cost Charges Bylaw 2025 (Bylaw No. 25-08) (“ACC Bylaw”) to add a transition provision to exempt developments that have an approved rezoning but that have not yet been fully constructed.
2. Consider which persons, organizations and authorities would be affected by such an amendment to the ACC Bylaw and determine that the general public would be affected.
3. Provide an opportunity for broad public consultation pursuant to section 570.3 of the Local Government Act and instruct the Director of Planning and Development (“the Director”) to notify the general public of the proposed amendment via the website and invite affected persons, organizations and authorities to ask questions of staff and provide written or verbal feedback for Council’s consideration.
4. Instruct the Director to:
a. Report back to Council with a summary of the feedback received pursuant to the above resolution.
b. Together with the summary of feedback, bring forward a bylaw to amend the ACC Bylaw by adding the transition provision described in resolution 1 above, as informed by the summary of feedback collected as part of resolution 2 above.
5. Advance this matter for ratification at the June 11, 2026 daytime Council meeting.
Council asked staff to check whether a small allotment garden could work on the Johnson Street Parkade roof, using a study commissioned by the Downtown Residents Association as a starting point. Councillors cited a 160-person garden wait-list and reported that 117 parking spaces were empty during a recent break. The amended direction asks staff to check structural and revenue assumptions, identify any City costs, and examine practical needs such as water, fencing, storage and access before reporting back to Council. Staff said Council would decide what to do after receiving that report. The motion passed with Councillor Coleman opposed.
Agreement
Councillors agreed that downtown residents need more garden space and that staff should test feasibility before any change is made.
The report back should examine parking use and revenue as well as the garden’s operating needs and possible costs.
Disagreement
Councillor Coleman opposed using parkade space for a garden, arguing that downtown parking is needed and that the City should consider ways to attract more drivers, such as free parking.
Supporters said the roof has underused space and that a garden could serve residents without preventing Council from considering parking measures elsewhere.
Staff would report on whether the roof can safely support a garden, what impact it could have on parking revenue, any further assessments needed, the proposed garden design, timing, and possible costs to the City. If the assessments are successful, staff would work with the Downtown Residents Association to set up a pilot garden, with the association responsible for managing the space and its users.
Official wording: That Council direct staff to report back to Council with:
Confirmation of, or corrections to, the WPI report’s load calculations and revenue impact projections, and identification of additional assessments required, if any, for a rooftop community garden on the Johnson Street Parkade roof, utilizing approximately 16 parking stall equivalents of rooftop space;
Any comments on the proposed garden design proposed by the Victoria Downtown Residents Association (DRA), including garden beds, plot allocation, water access, and other relevant factors;
A timeline for full occupation;
Cost estimate to the City Estimates of costs to the City, if any, including water, assistance with box construction, water lines, fencing
And that, subject to the above assessments being successfully completed, staff work with the (DRA) to develop a pilot project for this rooftop community garden, with DRA as head occupant of the space and the direct manager responsible for all aspects of the garden and its users.
Staff would report on the roof’s suitability, parking revenue effects, garden design, timing, and any costs to the City. If the assessments are successful, staff would work with the Downtown Residents Association on a pilot garden managed by the association.
Official wording: That Council direct staff to report back to Council with:
Confirmation of, or corrections to, the WPI report’s load calculations and revenue impact projections, and identification of additional assessments required, if any, for a rooftop community garden on the Johnson Street Parkade roof, utilizing approximately 16 parking stall equivalents of rooftop space;
Any comments on the proposed garden design proposed by the Victoria Downtown Residents Association (DRA), including garden beds, plot allocation, water access, and other relevant factors;
A timeline for full occupation;
Estimates of costs to the City, if any, including water, assistance with box construction, water lines, fencing
And that, subject to the above assessments being successfully completed, staff work with the (DRA) to develop a pilot project for this rooftop community garden, with DRA as head occupant of the space and the direct manager responsible for all aspects of the garden and its users.
Staff would provide the requested information, including any costs, and, if the assessments are successful, work with the Downtown Residents Association to develop a rooftop garden pilot that the association would manage.
Official wording: That Council direct staff to report back to Council with:
Confirmation of, or corrections to, the WPI report’s load calculations and revenue impact projections, and identification of additional assessments required, if any, for a rooftop community garden on the Johnson Street Parkade roof, utilizing approximately 16 parking stall equivalents of rooftop space;
Any comments on the proposed garden design proposed by the Victoria Downtown Residents Association (DRA), including garden beds, plot allocation, water access, and other relevant factors;
A timeline for full occupation;
Estimates of costs to the City, if any, including water, assistance with box construction, water lines, fencing
And that, subject to the above assessments being successfully completed, staff work with the (DRA) to develop a pilot project for this rooftop community garden, with DRA as head occupant of the space and the direct manager responsible for all aspects of the garden and its users.
Council backed a request for the Mayor to urge the Province to restore the BC Active Transportation Infrastructure Grants Program and provide stable, multi-year funding. The program has helped local governments, First Nations and unincorporated communities pay for projects such as sidewalks, protected bike lanes, multi-use paths and safer routes to school. Councillor Thompson said it had been suspended in 2025 during a provincial review and was not included in the current budget. The motion also asks the City to submit a resolution to the Union of BC Municipalities, with wording amended to meet the submission deadline.
Agreement
Council unanimously supported urging the Province to reinstate the grant program and provide predictable funding.
Council agreed to submit the resolution in time for the Union of BC Municipalities’ deadline.
Council would ask the Mayor to urge the Province to restore the active transportation grants program with at least $20 million a year in stable, multi-year funding. Staff would submit a UBCM resolution making the same request and explaining the need for provincial support for road-safety and active-transportation projects. The motion would also go to the daytime Council meeting to meet the UBCM deadline.
Official wording: That Council:
1. Request that the mayor write to urge the Provincial government to immediately reinstate the BC Active Transportation Infrastructure Grants Program and provide stable, multi-year funding at no less than $20 million annually
2. Direct staff to submit the following resolution to the Union of BC Municipalities for consideration at the 2026 Annual Convention.
Proposed UBCM Resolution — City of Victoria
FUNDING FOR ROAD SAFETY AND ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE
WHEREAS road crashes in British Columbia have increased steadily over the past five years, killing an average of 22 children and seriously injuring 380 more every year, with vulnerable road users - people walking, cycling, rolling, and using personal mobility devices - facing disproportionate risk;
WHEREAS the BC Active Transportation Infrastructure Grants Program provided approximately $20 million annually in cost-shared funding for sidewalks, crosswalks, protected bike lanes, traffic calming, and safer routes to schools, generating over seven dollars in total project investment for every dollar of provincial funding, and was suspended in late 2025 without a replacement program, leaving local governments without this critical funding source for the first time in over two decades;
WHEREAS UBCM members endorsed resolution NR81 at the 2024 Annual Convention calling for increased provincial active transportation funding, and the ongoing suspension of the BCAT program represents a new and even more urgent gap in provincial road safety investment;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that UBCM call on the Provincial government to immediately reinstate the BC Active Transportation Infrastructure Grants Program and provide stable, multi-year funding at no less than $20 million annually, enabling local governments across BC to plan and deliver road safety and active transportation infrastructure with confidence.
And that this motion be considered at the Thursday, June 11, 2026 daytime Council meeting to meet the UBCM submission deadline.
Council would ask the Mayor to urge the Province to restore the grants program with at least $20 million a year, and have staff submit a UBCM resolution calling for that funding to support road safety and active transportation. It would also be considered at the daytime Council meeting to meet the submission deadline.
Official wording: That Council:
1. Request that the mayor write to urge the Provincial government to immediately reinstate the BC Active Transportation Infrastructure Grants Program and provide stable, multi-year funding at no less than $20 million annually
2. Direct staff to submit the following resolution to the Union of BC Municipalities for consideration at the 2026 Annual Convention.
Proposed UBCM Resolution — City of Victoria
FUNDING FOR ROAD SAFETY AND ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE
WHEREAS road crashes in British Columbia have increased steadily over the past five years, killing an average of 22 children and seriously injuring 380 more every year, with vulnerable road users - people walking, cycling, rolling, and using personal mobility devices - facing disproportionate risk;
WHEREAS the BC Active Transportation Infrastructure Grants Program provided approximately $20 million annually in cost-shared funding for sidewalks, crosswalks, protected bike lanes, traffic calming, and safer routes to schools, generating over seven dollars in total project investment for every dollar of provincial funding, and was suspended in late 2025 without a replacement program, leaving local governments without this critical funding source for the first time in over two decades;
WHEREAS UBCM members endorsed resolution NR81 at the 2024 Annual Convention calling for increased provincial active transportation funding, and the ongoing suspension of the BCAT program represents a new and even more urgent gap in provincial road safety investment;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that UBCM call on the Provincial government to immediately reinstate the BC Active Transportation Infrastructure Grants Program and provide stable, multi-year funding at no less than $20 million annually, enabling local governments across BC to plan and deliver road safety and active transportation infrastructure with confidence.
And that this motion be considered at the Thursday, June 11, 2026 daytime Council meeting to meet the UBCM submission deadline.
Council asked staff to contact the Province for an update on the condition of 28 Bastion Square and its plans for the heritage building’s reuse. The Mayor will also write to the Province seeking an update. Councillors described the building as an important historic site that has stood vacant for years; discussion noted that seismic repairs could be very costly, but no current estimate was available. Councillors also raised the building’s potential to help animate Bastion Square and suggested that future options could include private-sector reuse.
Agreement
Councillors agreed that the building’s long vacancy and deteriorating condition warrant renewed contact with the Province.
Council supported seeking information before deciding what future action may be possible.
Disagreement
Councillor Thompson stressed that the site’s history includes painful events as well as notable heritage, and said both should be acknowledged in any public use.
City staff would ask the Province about the condition of 28 Bastion Square and its plans for the building, then report back with that information and ideas for encouraging its protection and restoration. The Mayor would also write to the Infrastructure Minister and the local MLA seeking an update and urging the building’s designation, restoration, and reopening.
Official wording: That Council
1. Direct staff to contact Provincial staff at the Ministry of Infrastructure for information on the current condition of 28 Bastion Square and the Province’s plans for reuse of the building,
2. Direct staff to report back to Council with the above information, and strategies to encourage protection and restoration of 28 Bastion Square, and
3. Request that the Mayor on behalf of Council, write a letter to the Minister of Infrastructure and the MLA for Victoria-Beacon Hill to receive an update on the future of 28 Bastion Square and urge the timely designation, restoration, and reopening of the building.
Council added this late motion because the deadline for Union of BC Municipalities resolutions was June 15. It was then approved as part of the consent agenda. The motion supports sending a resolution to the 2026 Union of BC Municipalities convention calling for the Province to reinstate the BC Community Housing Fund. The transcript does not include the full resolution text or a separate debate on its substance.
Agreement
Council unanimously agreed to add the late item and later approved it through the consent agenda.
Council would ask UBCM to urge the Province to restart the Community Housing Fund and provide dependable funding for non-market and affordable housing. It would also seek one-time money to help rescue stalled or cancelled projects, and ask the Province to align housing targets with available funding rather than penalize municipalities for targets they cannot meet because provincial programs were withdrawn. The motion was also to go to the daytime Council meeting to meet the UBCM deadline.
Official wording: 1. That Council support the following resolution to be sent to UBCM for consideration at the2026 Convention.
Whereas under the authority of the Housing Supply Act, the Province of British Columbia has imposed mandatory housing targets on local governments to accelerate housing delivery, including affordable below-market expectations; and
Whereas In Budget 2026, the Province indefinitely paused new intakes to the Community Housing Fund, its main capital program supporting non-market and affordable rental housing delivered by local governments and non-profit housing providers, thereby stalling or cancelling projects and stranding pre-development investments; and
Whereas local governments rely on sustained capital investment from the province to deliver non-market housing, and cannot meet imposed housing targets if the supply finance chain is broken.
Therefore be it resolved that UBCM urge the Province of British Columbia to immediately reinstate the Community Housing Fund and provide predictable, ongoing capital funding to support the delivery of non-market and affordable housing;
Be it further resolved that UBCM ask the Province to provide a lump sum of funding to try to salvage related cancelled or stalled projects, with an emphasis on purpose-built rental builds, transitional housing, affordable housing, accessible housing, culturally supportive housing, and non-market housing.
And be it further resolved that UBCM call on the Province to align housing target orders with the availability of provincial housing funding, and to refrain from penalizing municipalities for unmet targets resulting from the withdrawal or suspension of provincial housing programs beyond municipal control.
2. And that this motion be considered at the Thursday, June 11, 2026 daytime Council meeting to meet the UBCM submission deadline.